OpenWRT SSH MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'will initialize a new Thread network, configure it, and start it' and 'Returns network credentials including network key and dataset', which covers the core behavior and output. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits that would be helpful for a creation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and action, and another describing the return value. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the return info more seamlessly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (creating a network with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action and output but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, idempotency, or dependencies. For a network creation tool, more context would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no specific parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the significance of 'network_name' or 'channel' in Thread networks). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new Thread network') and specifies the resource ('Thread network'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'openwrt_thread_get_info' or 'openwrt_thread_get_dataset'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'openwrt_thread_enable_commissioner'), which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling Thread tools like 'openwrt_thread_get_state' or 'openwrt_thread_enable_commissioner'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.